Love You Gone

Sadly, you have probably heard by now about the disbanding of Hey Mercedes. It is an unfortunate event to witness when a favorite band breaks up. Gabe and I have had to experience it several times over the last few years. The Great Casket Lottery scare back in the day nearly tipped the scales, but I think the harshest we have had to cope with recently has been Small Brown Bike’s dismantling. But this…this is a blow without recourse.
Hey Mercedes was a band like no other. They did not boast the popularity of The Get Up Kids, or the fame of Saves the Day, and they most certainly did not rake in the money like numerous other Vagrant bands. But, if I have noticed one singular assessment among their loyal fan base over the course of their breakup, it has been the respectful
acknowledgement that they had class. Hey Mercedes belonged in the pages of The New Yorker. Their dialogue seemed to fit right in step with the picturesque pentameter of famous authors such as Schickler and Salinger. Groups like Saves the Day waxed pre-pubescent anguish over girls they had met in High School. Hey Mercedes was the band that spent its evenings in the smoky parlor over a few lamented tales of bitterness and revenge. They were easily one of the best groups of musicians to grace my collection from the moment of their conception, and they will be missed.

Action

Last night was my first night of Motion Picture Directing. I can’t say that anything terribly life changing happened during the class, but I think it is going to be fun. It is a very different atmosphere from my last semester. So far, I’ve only got one of my former crewmembers in this class, Brandon Steed, the 1st AC for Pantomiming. I’m also supposed to have Pantomiming’s casting director, but he was absent the first night (doh!).
The really interesting thing is that our teacher is actually a member of the Directors Guild of America. His professional name is Johnny Dust. I looked him up on the DGA website after class and found out that he directed commercials for Intel, Pepsi and McDonalds. In fact, one of the things he commented on during the class was his ability to get students freelance jobs with commercial agencies. Who knows?
Anyway, he started the night off with a little anecdote for the class. He once saw this documentary in which the director interviewed a serial killer who was on death row. He was a decidedly bad fellow – a rapist, a murderer, a sadist, sick and brutal in every way imaginable. In his lifetime he had done unspeakable things, and here he was, locked away because of the crimes he committed. The filmmaker rolled the camera and asked him point blank: “If you could do it all again, would you do it differently?”
The criminal sat there for a while, thinking to himself. Then, he looked up at the camera, and said: “If I could do it all again, I would like to direct”.
Some people in the class laughed, but a couple took on disgusted expressions. The teacher said that it was a nice illustration to introduce the world of motion picture directing and what kind of a mentality people believe directors as a whole have.
Regarding our curriculum, he said that he would teach us how to improve our skills in handling actors, but that he wasn’t an actor’s director. In fact, he said that the most indispensable tool a director has is cinematography (and he expects us to be proficient in it).
Overall, it will be an interesting class. Brandon and myself are the two youngest students in the class. Everyone else seems to be in their mid to late 20’s. And since we’re fresh out of production, I think most of the class sees us as snotty upstarts. I’m sure I’ll get to know them in time though.

On a different note, I rented the Village today and watched it for the first time since I saw it in the theater. I think I appreciated it a little more, but I’m still not a fan. However, I did pick out one element of the film that I think was the best in comparison all other films released this year. You’ll know what it is when I give my “best of 2004”…

…Whenever that is.

Game, set, match

Interesting night...interesting night indeed. More tomorrow.

I see skies of blue...

So, let’s talk about this new Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie. As you may or may not know, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was a popular book series written and developed by Douglas Adams. Adams, who frequently dabbled in both television and video games as mediums to explore the story, was adamant before his death about getting the stories translated into film. He had even penned a screenplay for such a movie. Now, here we are, sadly without Adams, yet with the presence of the first Hitchhiker movie looming upon us.
Without a doubt, considerable attention has gone into the creation of this film. Months, nay, years of preparation have preceded its conception. Endless debates and ponderings over the need for such a film have perpetrated even Adams’ most loyal of fans. And yet, here it is.
After watching the teaser trailer and reading extensively on the film, I have a number of positive expectations for the movie, but a couple of concerns as well.
First and foremost, the best thing that can be said about this movie is the extraordinary casting. Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent seems to be coolly calculated, Zooey Deschanel as Trillian is nicely played, and Sam Rockwell is always a welcome presence. Throwing in a few seasoned professionals like John Malkovich and Alan Rickman is smart. Overall, they seem to be playing their cards right in this area. The names are recognizable, but thankfully not overtly so.
The second best thing the movie has going for it is the director, Garth Jennings, who is a virtual unknown to mainstream film. Gabe pointed him out to me as the director of Blur’s ridiculously hilarious Coffee and TV music video. Aside from that, he hasn’t really had much experience in the industry. The most notable thing that could be said about the last few years of his work has been his job designing title sequences. However, if the sense of humor and style present in Coffee and TV is any indication, he just may be the right man for the job. It’s also nice to know that the film will not emerge from Jay Roach’s questionable talents (who is now only a producer). Roach, who directed Austin Powers and Meet the Parents, was formerly a concern I nurtured over this film. He is a funny enough director, but in a purely mainstream sense. The Hitchhiker brand of humor tended to stray away from that realm and into the bizarre.

Those being the good things, it’s time to move into the bad.
The first bad thing is the occasional change having taken place, differing the film (rather annoyingly in my opinion) from the book. Most notable among these changes is the alteration of Sam Rockwell’s character, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Formerly, he had two heads, which was quite amusingly played out by Adams numerous times in the prose. Yet the producers and director have thought it apt to change his dual head into a much smaller head that comes out of his nose. I’m sorry, what? Adams’ concept of the character was absurd, but this interpretation is so far, unfavorable. If they are so willing to completely and utterly slaughter one concept, who is to say that they haven’t already abolished others?
The second thing that bothers me is the mindset behind the creation of this film; basically it stands like this: Since Men In Black worked, this will work. Which is an unfortunate way to approach the film. If they’re trying to mold the humor around the style of the Men In Black films, then it’s safe to say that they’ve completely missed the comedic styling of the book, and to a greater extent, Adams. Adams was self-depreciating, mocking, off-color and politically correct to the point of being incorrect. Men In Black was simply concentrated buzz, absurdity for the blind. Very little of the humor was rooted in cultural implications, which the Hitchhiker humor seemed to thrive upon.

Of course, the teaser trailer and poster have raised my anticipation. And there is a singular beacon of hope that might very well propel this film into being a very successful endeavor: Douglas Adams’ guidance. The fact that he begun working on the film, laying the groundwork, before his death is a very comforting thought indeed.

Back to the grind

Tonight is my first night back in school. I’m elated to be back, but I’m also unsure of what might lie in store for me. Whatever the case, I doubt that it will be as harrowing as last semester was. The first class tonight is Motion Picture Directing. There is no actual filming that goes on in this class. Rather, we are given actors and an outline and spend the rest of the semester overseeing various responsibilities, building up to the creation of a film. I imagine that once the class ends and we don’t have any footage to detail all of our hard work, the experience will feel very anti-climatic. Yet, it’s nice to know that I won’t be producing two films at once…again.

Tomorrow night is Cinematography. I suspect that it might be the most difficult class of the semester. However, the arguing principle behind this logic goes like this: Cinematography could be boiled down to a science, but Motion Picture Directing lies in what can’t be measured and tested. I guess it’s more of a touch and go thing with Motion Picture Directing, which might make it an exceedingly difficult class that could very well dwarf Cinematography.
And then, next Monday I have Screenwriting II. I expect this to be the easiest class of the semester, since all we have to do is write.

Good enough

Over the weekend I saw In Good Company, staring Topher Grace and Dennis Quaid. Now, I’ve recently stopped reviewing movies and stuff here on the blog, but I felt like I had to mention this one in passing, only because it came very close to being very good. Yes, it was actually a very ambitious film. The themes explored in the story are thematic narratives that Gabe and myself have attempted to explore in our own stories and screenplays. Yet, while he and I made noble attempts, this film comes very close to nailing the subject of corporatism and cutthroat business practices to the wall. The subject is very darkly explored in the first half of the film, which takes delicate time to lie out the difficulties corporate politics and over-ambition have on marriage and family life. It also sketches out the current climate of lay-offs and empty kindness in the workplace. I think what really sold me on the theme of the film was the direct reference to major companies and firms taking on the visage of self-propelled, self-governed countries. That fear has been predicted for a long time, and now that it seems to be coming to a full-realization, the filmmakers have decided to waste no time in pointing it out.
In Good Company isn’t a great film, but it has a respectable amount of substance and it comes dangerously close to the mark of being memorable.

Weezer

I just heard that the new album single goes by the name of "Beverly Hills".

Drop in

Hey everyone, what’s new? Or should I say, what’s shakin’? I haven’t posted over the last few days, but I will. I just wanted to drop in and let you know that I hadn’t forgotten to blog. I’ve got a few topics I’ll post before the weekend.

Super Element

If you guys didn't already know, The Fifth Element: Ultimate Edition came out today in celebration of Brock's list. Actually, it's release is not related to Brock's list.

Just picked it up during my lunch. I was always dissapointed the original didn't come with any features. Best part? This comes with the SUPERBIT version. Nice. There's an informative review at DVDFile.com.

Oh yeah, The Village came out today also. ;-)

Rebuilding

Went to Zia's last week and went through my list of stolen CDs to find any used copies. Found nineteen. Not bad. Not what I wanted to use my year-end bonus for, but at least I have something to get my CDs back with. I still have a long way to go. Once I've drained my used CD resources, I'll have to go new. Hopefully DeepDiscountCD will have a few.

How was my weekend? Not bad. We were supposed to go to Snowbowl but we chickened out because there was a good chance of storms up North. Our vehicles aren't equipped. Ends up that the storms are happening now. Oh, well, we're shooting for this weekend.

Watched the Broncos lose. It's what I expected really, but, c'mon! I think Peyton's a crybaby. I really hope the Patriots give it to them (Y'all can come over and watch it at my house).

Round Up

Hello everyone, how was your weekend?

Mine wasn’t too bad. It was uneventful and mostly languid, but I made the best of it. School is just one week away for me, so I spent the weekend organizing the information about my classes. Categorizing my school history, I logged all of the classes I have taken and all of the classes I have remaining. Thanks to this, I got a fair estimate that I’d be done with film school by the end of this year. That’s good to know, and it’s also good to physically see all of the progress I have made. Sometimes its difficult to tell what you’re doing and what goal you have in mind when you’re right in the middle of it.
Aside from that, there was nothing memorable about the weekend. I wrote a short screenplay on Friday, which I’ve posted over at Leonard Hughes. It is entitled Wildlifeless. It’s kind of an offshoot from the era I’m currently studying for my next feature length screenplay.

I’m ashamed to say that I’ve anxiously been awaiting the re-launch of Pitchfork News (which has been delayed for another day). I mean, where else can I get daily updates on independent and semi-industry music? Tons of places, I’m sure. Pitchfork is the only one I know though, and the only one I’d happily disagree with. They’re the website I love to hate.

Well, the iconic character list is finally done. In case you missed it, here’s the entire list, from start to finish:

1. Dr. Strangelove
Stuart Little - prank #1
2. Darth Vader
3. Indiana Jones - 4. The Man With No Name
5. James Bond - 6. Willy Wonka
7. Gigolo Joe - 8. Leeloo
9. HAL - 10. Napoleon Dynamite
Kickoff Post


Also, as you probably know, Josh is back from his trip to Boston. He managed to post every single day he was there! In case you missed those posts, here they are, from day one to day fourteen:

Josh's Crazy Trip: Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8
Day 9
Day 10
Day 11
Day 12
Day 13
Day 14
La Fin
Bonus Post: On Making Chinese Movies

At last, the saga is complete.

1. Dr. Strangelove

When Dr. Edward Teller, the inventor of the Atomic Bomb, died in 2003, the media called him “Strangelove”.

The name was an especially cruel jape if you consider all of the other things Teller did in his lifetime. He was also the head of the research for Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, an attempt to disarm nuclear weapons in space. Tied directly to that was his involvement with laser weapons technology, a new field which Teller championed. Such devices as the F.E.L. (Free Electron Laser), a weapon that toggles the electrons within an atom – freeing them – to create a more powerful laser beam, came about due to his involvement with laser technology. Moreover, Teller was the head of recruiting at the San Francisco based Livermore Weapons Laboratory, a collective of the top minds in the world, all bent towards doomsday research. At his craziest, Teller attempted to develop a laser that could be fueled by the power of a nuclear explosion. With those things in mind, many thought he earned the name of “Strangelove”. Kubrick might have been one of those many people who thought him deserving of it.

Strangelove and his undying mockery
Yes, Teller and other scientists often had a number of things in common with the fictional weapons chieftain. Many scientists who gained influence in the 50’s and 60’s had fled Nazi rule in the 40’s. Although history never recorded it, many might have been divided up piecemeal with other countries once the Nazi regime had come to an end. These weapons designers were quickly put to work in their field of specialty.
They massed power, whispered unknown words into the ears of leaders, and influenced the air of animosity that characterized the Cold War. And Kubrick asked why.
Jeremy once pointed out that Dr. Strangelove did not even show up until halfway through the movie, despite the fact that it was named after him. And yet, he is clearly the centerpiece of this darkly comical opus. Strangelove was a mockery of everything Teller and other influential scientists were. He was an unabashed jab that was masterfully carried out by Peter Sellers (and the seething edge of his sting is still felt to this day). Time went by, wars began and ended at the advice of people like Teller, and Strangelove remained the cruel joke of retaliation.

Every doomsday weapon must have a brilliant mind behind it, you see. And Strangelove was among the very first of such minds to be characterized in motion pictures. He’s the quintessential mad scientist who is tinkering with the fate of mankind to achieve his own ends. At the end of the film, when depression sinks in for the loss of humanity, Strangelove rejoices at the resurrection of his beloved fascism. His forced, yet restrained speech when he utters the word “slaughtered” is a glimpse into his psyche. And his rogue Nazi hand, one of the few things about Strangelove’s persona still pledging allegiance to that bygone evil, seems to have more control over him then even he has.
As such, Strangelove is a commentary on the very nature of weapons scientists and their influence. Strangelove seems to barely maintain an inkling of control over himself. Ironically, the President never stops taking him seriously.

The waroom where Strangelove dwelt

Kubrick was a great fan of Sellers’ performance. In fact, word has it that he couldn’t stop laughing when he was filming Sellers’ war room sequences. Did he know he had created something profound? Would Kubrick suspect that Strangelove would come to represent the vast collective of evil masterminds and madmen throughout the ages? Perhaps. But perhaps he was genuinely touched by the sheer hilarity of the character.
And so it is; Dr. Strangelove continues to remain iconic to this day. Crazy scientists have never really outgrown Kubrick and Sellers’ caricature of their mentality. Their pegging of that era and those unseen historical figures was so acute that it remains credible even now. Of course, real life isn’t nearly so satirical as Strangelove, and Kubrick’s grasp wasn’t meant to be definitive. It’s merely a funny, new creation – the mad scientist and his evil plot.

But it is still a subtle wink….

1. Stuart Little

Surprised? No doubt you are.
The iconic status that Stuart Little reaches is no doubt in part to the clever screenwriting of M. Night Shyamalan. True, each and every character Night created, from Joseph Cross' Joshua A. Beal, to Adrien Brody's Noah Percy, stood as a testament to the overstated beauty of a cinematic icon. But it is Michael J. Fox's vocal treatment, the brilliantly animated character, Stuart Little, who came to represent not just the iconic flair of the Children's genre, but motion picture history itself. His presence here on the list could be counted as a representation of every character ever created, and as a representation of the cinema itself.
Larger than life, with an uncanny smile, Little launched an entire career from this character. He never really deviated from its path for that matter. However, as the fun-living mouse, his character holds the most respectability. Here, he is truly a cinematic icon, and not just some rip-off of so many other rip-offs.
The iconic status of this character is especially interesting to note, because it caused so many other things to take root in filmmaking. What’s more, his legendary presence was sealed because of a number of things not necessarily attributed to Fox's performance.

Ha, ha, ha! Oh, man that cracks me up! Did I actually fool you? Probably not.

Random 1

Man oh man, I just finished the write-up for the last character. It's sitting here, all formatted and ready to be posted, lying in wait in the Eyes Like Static storehouse. I'm gonna let it sit for a few hours though, just so I can come back later and look it over one last time. I catch more mistakes and tend to disagree with my own words if I wait long enough. Anyway, since that's all done I don't really feel like making a long post. I'll just note some things:

So I've been sick for the last few days. I can't even believe it, I feel like it's been one cold right after another. I think I'm finally getting better, but it took long enough. I've enjoyed reading Josh and Jeremy's posts in the meantime. I've also been listening to that new Ted Leo album, which I finally purchased. It's good, really good.

Oh yes, we'll be making some new movies soon. Very soon, I'd expect. Don't worry Gabe! We'll get on it, right away. I think we should get to work on Matt's music video ASAP though. Yes, we have our first actual client, although we're giving him a music video for free (way to go Gabe! (just kidding)). We'll see how that turns out. And hey, we've got the next film challenge to look forward to. And maybe a few other things. Soon enough, I want to put together a reel of the best parts of our combined footage. We can use it to sell ourselves to prospective buyers (sell our talent that is).

2. Darth Vader

Admittedly, I am a big Star Wars fan. However, let me interject here for a moment with a thought: my enjoyment of the series has had absolutely no bearing at all on my selection of Vader as the second most iconic character. None at all. Consider the promotional material for the prequel series and I think you’ll understand why:
For the release of Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace, George Lucas released a lovely one-sheet poster depicting a young Anakin Skywalker with the menacing shadow of Darth Vader looming behind him. Then, in 2001, Lucas released the very first teaser trailer for Star Wars, Episode II. It was a collection of images set to the tone of Darth Vader’s ominous breathing. Finally, for the last Star Wars film, Revenge of the Sith, the director established a trailer that once again revealed the classic villain in all his glory.
Even when we step away from the promotional material for the latest Star Wars film and consider the linage of the previous films we’re faced with a bombardment of the character. On cereal boxes, action figures, t-shirts, magazines and numerous other items, Vader’s insipid mask is proudly plastered.
Is this repeated use of Vader as a promotional tool purely a matter of coincidence? Absolutely not! It’s calculated and specific, intended for public consumption. Lucas and his marketing team know the impact of the character, and they’ve maximized the use of Vader’s image in every possible manner to profit from that impact. In fact, I doubt that the promotional material for the recent Star Wars films would have been as successful without Vader’s overbearing presence. It’s unfair to give you the impression that he’s the ultimate trump card however.
Vader’s iconic nature may have been used to a vast effect in promotional materials the world over, but he is primarily an iconic character because of the brilliance and creativity that went into establishing him. A number of people are to be applauded for this. First and foremost, the character’s design, a ghoulish concoction of black leather and blinking “life support”, can be attributed to the artistic influence of production designer Ralph Macquarie and Industrial Light and Magic. His skeletal mask, a death’s head of terror, was masterfully sculpted together by production artists and visual effect craftsmen. His haunting respiratory system, that deep hissing noise that emanates from whatever scene he happens to be occupying, is the offspring of Foley Artist Ben Burt. Last, but not least, his voice; a sinister tambour vile enough to be a character in and of itself, can be attributed to the vocal performance of James Earl Jones. Without any of these contributions in place the character would have failed. But, when put together, they give birth to a maniacal, devious character…one that has come to symbolize evil in film for several generations. And if Lucas’ use of Vader in promotional material stands as an indication of the future, it is likely that he’ll continue to symbolize cinema evil for many generations to come.
That is why I’ve selected Darth Vader as my second most iconic film character. He’s the reason why lists like these are created! Of course, it could be argued that his recent sullying at the hands of Lucas’ prequel saga diminishes the character’s resonance. Yet, it could just as easily be counter argued that the character’s original magnificence was never brought into question. A few actors have attempted to portray the man behind the mask, and have failed. But the original performance was never a failure. The group of people I mentioned created an icon, and no matter how many follies Lucas creates, that original iconic character can never be taken away.

The 10 most iconic film characters of all time: 3 and 4

4. The Man With No Name

Until Sergio Leone, Westerns were largely un-cool. Driven by crotchety old men who had some self-righteous ax to grind, the Westerns of old were characterized by languid plots and small-minded narratives. Although many are still remembered fondly today, very few have the cinematic panache to stand apart from the genre as a piece of film legend. They lacked style. They lacked presence. And then, in a salute to grandeur itself, Sergio Leone gave the Western its greatest champion.
True, each and every character Leone created, from Eli Wallac’s Tuco, to Angel Eyes, stood as a testament to the overstated beauty of a cinematic icon. But it is Clint Eastwood’s character, The Man With No Name, who came to represent not just the iconic flair of the Western genre, but motion picture history itself. His presence here on the list could be counted as a representation of every character Leone ever created, and as a representation of the cinema itself.
Larger then life, with an uncanny death-glare, Eastwood launched an entire career from this character. He never really deviated from its path for that matter. However, as The Man With No Name, his character holds the most respectability. Here, he is truly a cinematic icon, and not just some rip-off of so many other rip-offs.
The iconic status of this character is especially interesting to note, because it caused so many other things to take root in filmmaking. What’s more, his legendary presence was sealed because of a number of things not necessarily attributed to Eastwood’s performance.
The costume and visual look for instance was a large contributor to his iconic radiance. Some have pointed out that people would have never worn such crazy clothing in the West, but here it doesn’t matter. In Leone’s west, the larger you are, and the more presence you have, the better.
Leone’s choice of shots and angles in covering The Man With No Name also attribute to his iconic status. Extreme close-ups of Eastwood’s scathing eyes, so close that you can practically see the texture in his skin pores, have become an icon unto themselves. Other tasteful close-ups, such as his hand as it compulsively reaches for his gun holster, or his looming presence as he stands over a field of blank desolation, all blend together to make him larger then life. Simply put: The Man With No Name made the Western hero cooler then any other protagonist to grace the silver screen.






3. Indiana Jones

One of the more famous rumors surrounding directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas has been their alleged desire to film a James Bond flick. Apparently, this desire first took root years ago, and some have said that both directors pursued the project to a certain extent. However, those are just rumors. Additionally, Lucas and Spielberg never really went through with filming a Bond picture. Whispers and gossip are all that remain of the lucrative Spielberg/Lucas Bond flick. Something else was left over though.
Yes, neither one have denied the fact that Indiana Jones was a character Lucas created to channel their inspiration for a James Bond story into their own creation. They even got the original Bond, Connery, to play Indiana’s father in the final film of the series. Yet, along the way, Lucas tweaked a few things about the character and made them his own.
First and foremost, Indiana Jones resides in the late 30’s to 40’s. The earliest that Bond showed up was 60’s. Likewise, Indiana seems to be missing a number of subtle intricacies that Bond thrived upon, like that icy disposition or general sense of preparedness. Jones is also a scholar, and not just some brainless agent sent to do some overbearing government’s bidding. He lives for the thrill of the hunt and the attainment of some mystical artifact (not his next female conquest).
So why is he on the list? If he’s just some James Bond knock-off, why am I squandering the third best spot on the list over Spielberg’s aborted ambitions? Well, his character deserves special recognition because of how truly iconic he is. Everything about him makes him an icon. His fedora, whip, leather jacket, and personality all mark him as a top cinematic icon. Even the score by John Williams seems to be an extention of the character’s personality.
What’s more, you always get the sense that he’s always going to be escaping some danger or uncertain death, only to fall into the hands of some greater demise (which, he’ll eventually escape, leaving him at the mercy of some other doom). He is a never-ending cycle of trickery and showboating, a character who exists purely for popcorn enjoyment.
And because of that, Indiana Jones is the third most iconic film character of all time. Heck, he is the reason why lists like these exist. Not including him would have been a crime…

The Drive to Cinematize

Since Brock's not getting off his butt, I'll have to post. Just kidding, bro!

I'm highly motivated to do a new film project. I don't care what I do either, be it actor, director, cinematographer, or gaffer. Part of it has to do with the fact that it's been a little while since my last project. Part of it is that I've seen quite a few great movies lately. Part of it is reading about all of Josh's daily experiences up in New England. Also, Brock, Josh, and I have yet to work all together on the same film. I do believe that once we all team up, magic will happen. Cinema magic, mind you.

A disgruntled participant of last year's 48-hour film contest, put on by the MCAI of Arizona, is putting on his own. It is entitled "The Almost Famous Film Festival." Details can be found at www.ballboy.net. Much to my sadness, I'll be out-of-town during the contest. Brock and Josh, go get 'em!

An old friend who really got me into checking independent movies and such emailed me a short script. He moved to Oregon a few years ago, then to Texas. Now he's in Tucson, not too far away. In fact, I first started a blog with him reviewing movies, called "Gabe and Jeremy's Movie Reviews." This was quite a while before Brock and I started one. We actually did it when he was living in Oregon. We tried to see the same movie the same weekend and review it. I hope to work on his movie soon as well.

January 11th, The Phoenix Film Project will be announcing their next film challenge. They say it will take the next step, whatever that is. But I'm excited to do it.

Don't forget about the Phoenix Film Festival coming up in April. I'm debating whether or not I want to return as a volunteer. It was fun, but a lot of work. Plus, I only got to see two movies.

Way of the Future

Last night, over free chips and salsa, and flaun (sp?), Gabe mentioned that I hadn't posted in a while. Yeah...I haven't. Sorry about that. I was so diligent about it last week that I figured no one would notice my absence for a few days. Besides, I didn't really feel like posting for some reason. However, I will probably finish the list this week. 4 and 3 will be later today or early tomorrow. Make special note of this however: characters 1 and 2 will be posted separately. They're important enough that they merit their own separate post. And here's a clue...they're antagonists, not heroes of any sort.

I saw Ocean's 12 and The Aviator over the weekend. Ocean's 12 was terrible, in my opinion. There were a few moments that had a spark of genius, but generally I was disappointed. The Aviator on the other hand was remarkable. It may be a serious contender for my 'best picture of the year'.

-Brock

Parker

Anywho I also saw Spanglish. It was an emotionfest. Let's all cry. Wah Wah Wah, alright now that that's over let's talk with long pauses and little meaningful dialogue and solve our problems. -Parker

Made me laugh...

Behold...

View Brock's second student film, starring me, here. Through the last two films, I've discovered I have a mannerism. It shall die.

I'll host this one for about a week, then I'll put up Brock's class project Pantomiming, starring real actors.

The 10 most iconic film characters - 6 and 5

6. Willy Wonka

You know him as the crazy man in the top hat. Rogue candy-maker, Willy Wonka, was a notable children’s literary figure before he was ever a film character. But it was with this movie in 1971 that the character earned widespread recognition. Willy Wonka from that point on was a memorable character to nearly anyone to place his or her glance on his visage. Many people have suggested that it was his colorful attire that prompted this recognition, and still others suggest that it was the bizarre nature of the movie itself that cemented him in viewer’s minds. But recently, most attribute his iconic nature to Gene Wilder’s uncanny performance.
If you’re looking for dark undertones, look no further. Willy Wonka seemed drenched in them. When he wasn’t coyly stringing his pint-sized contestant winners along, he was grimly alluding to moral hubris and inbred greed. He was a child’s character that took a few moments to address the unreality of his film in a very creepy manner. These dramatic underpinnings coupled with the character’s natural mannerisms have engrained him in most everyone’s mind. Not everyone may recognize all of the characters on this list, but I’d wager that everyone would know who Willy Wonka is. And that’s the true success and iconic status of the character. Poor Depp - here is to hoping he fairs well. He’s taking on an icon himself.

5. James Bond

James Bond almost didn’t make the cut. This is mostly because of the atrociously bad presence his films have had on the industry lately. Sure, they make a plethora of money, but they’re just terrible films. But, I had to give the character sway, especially since I considered his truest incarnation to be in the form of Sean Connery.
Actually, when you consider the James Bond films of that era, they weren’t anything spectacular either. Much more important films were being made at the time, and James Bond was merely a stopgap to an audience that refused to take in anything culturally obscure or dramatically different. And yet, no matter how much more important the other films may have been at the time, you can’t deny the fact that the public at large doesn’t really remember any of them. They do remember James Bond.
He’s changed a little bit with each different actor to take the helm, but he was best defined and represented when Sean Connery played him. Dapper, wry, coolheaded, and an unfortunate womanizer, almost everything about his translation of the character is memorable. And he is iconic as well. Whereas my earliest choices on the list were choices that may not seem iconic to everyone save for myself, here is a character that is iconic to everyone and secretly detested by myself. Well, I don’t dislike Bond actually, and if I have to give way to popcorn cinema (where most of the iconic characters come from anyway), then I’ll gladly give way to James Bond. As he was played by Roger Moore? Forgettable. Timothy Dalton? Regrettable. Pierce Brosnan? Bombastic. Sean Connery? Iconic.